Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Is Darwin’s theory of evolution unquestionable fact? Or should the possibility that an intelligent designer created our world be discussed as an alternative? Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a recent film presented by actor and political speech writer Ben Stein, suggests that it should.
Released on April 18 2008, Expelled opened in 1,052 cinemas – a record for a documentary – and created a huge storm of controversy. A company called XVIVO filed a lawsuit accusing it of plagiarizing an animation, while Yoko Ono attempted to have it pulled from theaters because she didn’t like its use of John Lennon’s song Imagine. Expelled won both cases, but continued to be swamped with a barrage of terrible reviews, accusations of unprofessionalism and duping interviewees, and far more.
Naturally, I had to pick up the recently released DVD to see for myself what all the fuss was about.
Expelled opens with its central point – that there is no academic freedom to suggest an alternative to the Darwin juggernaut. Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor, biology teacher Caroline Crocker and many more academics say that when they simply brought up intelligent design they were mocked by their peers, fired or found their careers come to a dead end. It’s chilling and reveals the scientific world as being one of incredible narrow-mindedness.
Unsurprisingly, evolution advocates have since tried to discredit all of these sources, and the institutions that employed them deny that intelligent design had anything to do with their firing; although they fail to give any concrete alternative reason. “It was procedure,” they explain vaguely. It’s a powerful beginning to an important film.
Sure, Expelled is not perfect. Ben Stein’s droning voice, so funny in his role as a boring teacher in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, can be a bit of a drag. Some judicious editing could have spared us a few overlong atmosphere-building sequences. And Intelligent Design itself isn’t much of a theory – it doesn’t explain who the designer is, shying away from God to keep itself from being classified as religion.
But if you look at Expelled simply as a petition for an alternative, and a showcase of how deeply flawed the evolutionist’s outlook is, it’s an effective, thought-provoking film.
While my opinion comes from the layman’s point of view, it’s an educated one, backed by my research on two articles about the new wave of atheist scientists. One, “Not Such a Bright Idea,” was published in Back to Godhead magazine; the other, a rebuttal of Wired Magazine’s article “The New Atheists,” appeared on Krishna.com.
So I’ve noticed that most scientists, and particularly the radical atheists headed by Richard Dawkins, love to point out how much sense science makes and how fantastical religion is. They do it so much, and so eloquently, that I even found myself occasionally wondering if they were right. But watching Expelled evaporated those doubts – it became obvious to me that scientists’ ideas are certainly no less outlandish than those of the religious.
They claim that evolution explains everything. Yet when pressed, they all admit that they have no idea how life came about, acting as if this doesn’t create a chink in their armor. They do have ideas though. Darwinist Michael Ruse offers up the biggest gem: “One popular theory was that it might have started off when molecules piggy-backed on crystals forming, and this led to more complexity.”
Hmmm. Guys, why don’t you just admit that you haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about?
It gets better. Both Ruse and Richard Dawkins agreed that if there was an intelligent designer, it certainly wasn’t God – but it could be visiting aliens who came and seeded life onto earth.
Expelled also reveals just how flimsy evolution is as the explanation for everything. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, one of the few underground scientists questioning evolution, says, “Darwin didn’t know how life began. His theory only begins after you have the first cell.”
Wells acknowledges that there is evidence of evolution everywhere – if you define it as change over time. “But Darwin didn’t call his book Species Developing over Time,” he says. “He called it the Origin of Species. And the evidence for that grand claim, is in my opinion, almost totally lacking.”
But for me, Expelled’s most powerful moment comes – surprisingly – from a supporter of evolution. Dr. Will Provine, professor of the history of biology at Cornell University, paints such a dark picture of an evolutionist’s worldview that he overshadows any other points made in the film. “It starts by giving up an active deity. Then you give up the hope that there’s any life after death,” he says, punctuating every word with bitter emphasis. “The rest follows fairly easily. If you believe in evolution, you give up hope of an imminent morality, of any human free will, or of any deep meaning in human life. We live, we die, and we’re gone.”
How anyone could subscribe to such a dire worldview is beyond me – it goes completely against our intrinsic nature.
But there are obviously a lot of people who defend it. Proving Expelled’s point that there is no intellectual freedom, scientists and the media viciously attacked the film upon its release.
Yet there was a curious inconsistency to these attacks. Rotten Tomatoes, a movie site that compiles reviews for an overall verdict, gave Expelled a dismal 10%. Summarizing 41 reviews, it stated: “Full of patronizing, poorly structured arguments, Expelled is a cynical political stunt in the guise of a documentary.”
Interesting. Because the same website gave Religulous, an opposing documentary that ridicules religious beliefs, 71%, saying, “Religulous is funny and offensive in equal measure, and aims less to change hearts and minds than to inspire conversation.” This claim of a balanced perspective is completely false. Presenter Bill Maher is a fundamentalist atheist who talks about religion the same way Richard Dawkins does – with complete scorn and even hate. “Religions are the most dangerous threat facing mankind,” he says, claiming that “religion must die for mankind to live.” And this is supposed to be less of a patronizing, political stunt than Expelled?
Another common accusation against Expelled is that Ben Stein has chopped and edited his interviews to suit his points and to make atheists look stupid. First of all, while the movie could have done without the odd splicing in of sensationalist clips, all the Darwinists are given plenty of airtime to dig their own holes. Secondly, Religulous did exactly the same thing. As Christianity Today comments, “Religulous is best seen as a comedy and not as a serious or measured examination of anything. It’s a movie meant to make religious people look stupid, to ‘prove’ that religious belief and intelligence are mutually exclusive.”
Critics of intelligent design who appeared in Expelled, such as Richard Dawkins, say they were misled when producers asked to interview them for a film named Crossroads on the “intersection of science and religion.” But this is a common technique for investigative documentaries – the scientists would have either refused to be interviewed or been less honest about their opinions if they knew the actual intent of the film. Bill Maher did exactly the same thing, telling religious interviewees for his film Religulous that it was called “A Spiritual Journey.” Why was he not attacked for this tactic as Ben Stein was?
There’s more. People used grass roots efforts to send internet searches for Expelled to other websites that criticize the themes in the movie. They even sent emails to boycott the documentary, such as this one which a prominent U.S. movie theater chain forwarded to Expelled’s producers: “I urge the management of this theater company to consider rejecting the highly controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, as it undermines science in our nation’s schools.”
Despite all these attacks, Expelled earned over $7 million, making it the 12th highest-grossing documentary in the USA since 1982 – and it’s still selling on DVD. The film’s website also features a petition for an academic freedom bill that would allow teachers to discuss alternatives to evolution. The bill has already been passed in Louisiana.
It’s a tough climate for those who question evolution. Richard Dawkins and his New Atheists have a large following and a growing list of bestselling books dismissing religion as silly fiction. But as long as efforts like Expelled are made, there’s still hope that the door to discussion will be opened and evolution will be seen by the public for what it really is: just a theory.
And ISKCON devotees, fighting their own fight against modern atheistic science, will continue to support such efforts. Drutakarma Dasa (Michael Cremo), who experienced the scientific communities wrath firsthand when he presented scientific cover-ups in his book “Forbidden Archeology,” says, “Expelled did an excellent job in documenting the consequences suffered by scholars and scientists who dare oppose the theory of evolution.”
ISKCON founder Srila Prabhupada was a bit more outspoken about confronting Darwinist theory. “Therefore we have to make very strong propaganda against this theory [Darwinism],” he told disciples in LA in March 1973. “Otherwise if you sleep only and take doctorate title, what is the use? You have to fight against these rascals. Make your soldier's party and start fighting against these rascals. No more toleration. No more silence.”
Play Audio
Pause Audio
Reader Comments:
I disagree and it is
I disagree and it is complete nonsense to argue that myth is literally true. Myth has an important role in development of understanding and in culture. But to claim that atheism, agnosticism and Darwinism is not "Hindu" and fighting against them is nonsense. You disgrace the most cherished Hindu pluralism.
Dear Kapil! ID is an
Dear Kapil!
ID is an argument that goes thousands of years back. The ID Movement as a scientific movement might be traced back to what you claim. But even that is not the complete picture. As we have already written Prabhupada talked about the flagellum with Sadaputa Prabhu in 1976. However, as I said, to claim that the origin of a proposition has an inherent bearing on its truth value is to commit the "genetic fallacy". If Hitler says two plus two equals four it's still correct. Similarly, if young earth creationist claim that ID is science it can still be true. But as Lalitanath Prabhu have already pointed out the proponents of ID are often not creationists. Creationists often disagree with and make propaganda against ID.
The ID movements arguments is the same as William Paley's argument. They just provide us with more data to support the premises of the argument.
ID can be tested and ID is just as falsifiable as the theory of evolution. I suggest you visit a website like www.ideacenter.org to learn more about ID. You have to address the specific arguments of ID and not just claim things as you do in your post.
Evolution theory has never been proved. There is absolutely no evidence that can justify belief in macro evolution. Of course, to debate whether that is true or not will lead into millions of examples and counterexamples. We don't have to go into that here. The debate is going on and everyone can study the arguments for him or her self.
You are actually contradicting yourself. First you claim that ID is not falsifiable, yet you also claim that "Irreducible Complexity has been found to be utter hogwash." If it's hogwash it means it false and then it has been falsified. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. The flagellum argument has never been debunked. You can follow Behe's defense of it on his blog at amazon.com. Some of the so called refutations are textbook examples of logical fallacies and bad science.
Dembski is also continually defending his claims. So the debate it not settled to the satisfaction of the proponents of Darwinism as you seem to think.
So in my opinion your case is based of false assumptions and fallacies. Fortunately more and more intelligent people are waking up to the fact that Darwinism is extremely problematic and the fact that we need alternative explanations. A proof of that is the very aggressive attacks on ID and the ID proponents on a personal level - as revealed by No Intelligence Allowed. Such attacks are symptoms of desperation. When an animal is forced into a corner it has no other choice but to attack with nails and teeth. Many Darwinists are acting like such trapped animals.
Let us pause for a moment to
Let us pause for a moment to consider this statement: ID is in agreement with Krishna Consciousness. It is not contingent upon science to determine what fragments of it are in agreement with Krishna Consciousness and then present them to match the sensibilities of all the devotees.
To begin with, the origins of ID, can be traced back to the mid 20th century where they evolved from discussions, nay legal battles between science teachers, and christian preachers disguised as theologians, when the later attempted to modify school curriculum, in order to incorporate ID besides the Theory of Evolution, or possibly even replace it all together. Furthermore, the criticism of the Theory of Evolution as presented in Srila Prabhupada Maharaja's 'Science of Self Realization' is identical to the watchmaker argument put forth by Christian theologist William Paley in the early 17th century.
Since ID does not propose any new information, nor does it present a falsifiable hypothesis that can be rigorously tested, observed and subsequently accepted (or rejected), it does not belong to the realm of science. Any theory presented in science is contingent on proof, and while it must provide dollops of evidence in its support, a single counter example would demolish the theory and relegate it to the status of a disproved hypothesis.
There has not been a single such counter example to the theory of evolution. It explains with remarkable accuracy the progress of life from simpler organisms into significantly much more complex lifeforms. Furthermore, Irreducible Complexity has been found to be utter hogwash. The last signficant attempt to depose the theory of evolution from the science textbooks was based on the concept of irreducible complexity. a classic example, that was presented in the courtrooms was the undulating flagella of a microbe, and the sub cellular motor that caused the undulation of the flagella. it was argued that this presented an example of irreducible complexity. not surprisingly, this concept was debunked as a defective motor, i.e. one with certain missing components were still found to be functional, within certain limitations, and thus still presented the microorganism with the selective advantage it required to succeed over its competitors.
Finally, i have incidentally read William Dembski's Intelligent Design, and its line by line debunking presented in Unintelligent Design. Dembski is hardly considered a notable scientist when presenting arguments against evolution, inasmuch as his own teacher and mentor has disregarded his work. Dembski is not unlike an orphaned child who cries wolf while the world turns its back on him. There are significantly many more prominent supporters of ID, in particular Michael Behe who deserve more attention and examination.
Re: ID is both scientific and in harmony with KC
I agree with some of Kapil's points, and found Lalitanatha's reply a bit one-sided. For example, on points:
2. It is true that Darwinism is often discussed in conjunction with the origin of life, but they are different issues. They are addressed by different groups of scientists and have different philosophical implications. Their truth or falsity is mutually exclusive. The ID film, and Lalilathanath, tried to take them one as a unified set of concerns, but this is unhelpful in sorting out the theological, scientific and philosophical questions.
3. The problem of falsifiability is far more complex than what is said above. Firstly, Darwinists generally claim that Darwinism can explain all biological complexity (including irreducibly complex systems), which is different than saying Darwinism falsifies ID. Secondly, how is ID falsifiable? Before addressing your comments, I'd need to hear what your views are, for you haven't actually said how ID can meet basic scientific requirements.
4. There are some non-Christian ID theorists, but we have to look at the ID movement in the much larger context of Western history, and merely listing a few non-Christian IDers isn't helpful there. Moreover, it would be necessary to make a rigorous examination of that history before committing ISKCON to Western theological trends. Lalitanatha's view that "ID-movement has a completely different root than Christian creationism" is absurd. Having met a number of the founders of ID (such P. Johnson and W. Dembski), as well as M. Denton, it is clear that ID was in the 1980s closely tied up with the far Christian right, creationism, etc., just as it is today. Not all IDers are creationists, but many are (including Johnson, who seems to believe the earth is only 4000 years old).
5. I have deep reservations that ID is in "harmony" with KC. In the very least, it has not been shown, but merely assumed, by devotees who write about it. I haven't seen a single theological examination of ISKCON's views of creation and causality as compared with those of ID, but if one exists, please let us know. It seems that devotees have just latched on to ID without much critical consideration of it. I think this is a problem, and welcomed Kapil's more critical approach.
ID is both scientific and in harmony with KC
Kapil Prabhu.
A few comments.
1. It is not true that the interviews with Richard Dawkins and his allies were gained under false premises. I have followed this movie for a year and half now, both before and after its release, and have read all the arguments forth and back. The film company did what is always done when making documentaries like this. Furthermore, except for the one about aliens Dawkins doesn’t say anything in the movie that he hasn’t said or written elsewhere and which is freely available in the public. So why is he complaining? I quess he doesn’t like to come across bad but hey, that is just life, and Dawkins is actually not the bright intellectual that some thinks he is.
2. Although Darwin didn’t try to explain the origin of life and the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection is only operating after life is there in the first place, the origin of life is certainly part of the discussion of how life can have evolved. Open any book on high school or college biology, and you’ll find the origin of life discussed along with evolution itself. The origin of life and the evolution of life are not two separate issues but strongly related.
3. Prabhu, I feel that you haven’t familiarized yourself very much with the intelligent design controversy and the ID-literature but are simply repeating whatever comes out of what I call the Darwinian propaganda machine. For instance, the claim that ID is not falsifiable is not correct although it is a claim which some Darwinists like to throw around. The same Darwinists are also often seen claiming that they have refuted the claims of ID (such as the claims about irreducible complexity). That is of course contradictory. If ID-theory is not falsifiable then it cannot be refuted (since, after all, to falsify means to refute), and if ID has been refuted then it is indeed falsifiable. You can’t both have your cake and eat it. That you are recycling such claims tells me that you need to get more into depth about what ID actually is.
4. The same goes for the claim that ID is Christian propaganda. For instance, if you had stopped to think for a moment you might have wondered what someone like David Berlinsky who is interviewed in Expelled has to do in a Christian propaganda campaign. Besides being an outstanding mathematician, Dr. Berlinsky is a secular jew, somewhat agnostic in his outlook and drinking redwine in a luxury apartment in Paris. Hardly the stereotype of what someone who would be part of a Christian propaganda plot would look like. So this claim is simply silly.
In fact, as I mentioned in my first comment, the ID-movement has a completely different root than Christian creationism. It sprang up from within the scientific community, particularly in the beginning of the 80ies. For an indepth exploration of this I suggest you may read ”Doubts About Darwin” by historian of science Thomas Woodward who in this book traces out and follows the inception and growth of the ID-movement all the way from the 1960ies (see http://www.amazon.com/Doubts-About-Darwin-History-Intel...).
5. In conclusion, ID is actually very much in harmony with our Krishna conscious position and what, for instance, has come out of the BI. Devotees need not have any reservations about embracing ID, in my opinion. I am not sure how you have gotten such a different impression.
Haribol Prabhu! The
Haribol Prabhu! The criticism of the titular movie are actually quite justified, not because its content is false, which it arguably is, but because it has claimed to be a victim where indeed it is the aggressor. For instance, the interviews in the movie of certain scientists such as Richard Dawkin and other advocates of evolution were gained under false premises. Furthermore, the movie periodically misrepresents the Evolutionary Biology as a perceived solution for everything. That is so remarkably untrue that it invalidates the intentions of the movie makers. Evolution, as many people misunderstand it to be, does not explain, or lend itself as a possible explanation for how life originated. Furthermore, there is currently no unanimously accepted theory that explains the process of biogenesis. However, evolution does, using proof that is as diverse as paleontological, physiological, embryological, genetic, and bio diversity, to explain how life increased in complexity from unicellular organisms into the current state. Yet, its staunchest critics attempt to point out that it does not explain the origin of life. Well, neither does the theory of gravitation, or the theory of special relativity, or the theory of electromagnetism etc etc. One must examine a theory for what it attempts to explain rather than what it is not even remotely associated with. In this instance, Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, that is a question that must be answered by biochemist.
Furthermore, science is not like a coin toss. There are no two sides to a story. There are accurate representations and there are inaccurate representations. Why, one can argue, are not two sides to the theory of gravitation not explained in schools? Simply because any hypothesis suggesting that there exists a force other than gravity that is responsible for keeping us grounded to this planet or earth in an orbit around the sun etc would have to supplement itself with evidence. furthermore, for this hypothesis to be considered science, it must be falsifiable. I.e. it must clearly define the circumstances, or the evidence, the discovery of which would invalidate this hypothesis. The whole Intelligent design hypothesis is neither falsifiable, nor does it supplement itself with evidence. If anything, it is nothing but a Christian propaganda that is used to press upon everyone else in this country, a dogmatic view of this world and the universe.
Correction: ID is a very precise theory
Nice review. I agree with most of it, and devotees should definitely see this movie. However, one sentence annoyed me: "Intelligent Design itself isn’t much of a theory – it doesn’t explain who the designer is, shying away from God to keep itself from being classified as religion."
This is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of intelligent design (ID). ID is not an attempt to get Christian Creationism into the classrooms in America by omitting any direct reference to God, although this is the general claim of the Darwinian propaganda machine. The ID-movement didn’t originate from within the Creationist movement but in the scientific community, and the term intelligent design was in use long before the court case in 1988 that banned Creationism from the classrooms in America. That ID doesn’t explain or define the creator – although most ID proponents think it is God – is not a political strategy but simply a correct assessment of the limits of empiricism. When looking at the astounding technology inside the cell it is not possible to tell if it was created by God or by aliens, for instance – but you are still justified to conclude with absolute certainty that it is the result of design and not merely unaided physical and chemical processes.
As for being a theory ID is actually defined very precisely as being "the study of features that are best explained by intelligent causes." This is elaborately dealt with in The Design Inference and other books by mathematician Bill Dembski. When it comes to biology and nature the claim of ID is that "living organisms and nature in general contain features that cannot very well be explained by physical law and chance alone but are best explained by an intelligent cause." These are very exact definitions and, in spite of what Darwinists would like to admit it, completely testable.
I keep this very brief but am willing to back all this up with more references if desired.